Religion is for men

Yes, I have noticed that people of faith do seem to lack enough faith in Jesus to trust Him in His election of men, and to trust in His providing a church institution worthy of spreading His name. We do have a list; Jesus and His disciples. Anything else which may be assumed is irrelevent. We can not for example make every Christian grow a beard based on the assumption that Jesus had one. If no one knows for sure, how can I can I say you are wrong? Ok, my parameters are; no woman was elected by Jesus. Maybe the idea is that woman are BETTER than men, they are trusting and faithful, blah blah blah, and they are so great that Jesus would not have dreamed of exposing them to any scandal or putting them in a position of serving a church. They can go serve Jesus, and not the institution. Leading is serving, and serving is leading.

but only if they are leading and serving under men.that's such a crap excuse for telling women to shuttup and know their role.

Except that's not a list; there's nowhere in the Bible where an exhaustive list of disciples is mentioned - and certainly no basis for the idea that Jesus chose only men for his disciples.In fact even that claim is questionable; the Bible uses "disciple" as a word meaning "those who follow the teachings", which makes it fairly clear that it wasn't so much Jesus picking his elect team of religious all-stars, but rather, men and women for whom the teachings resonated coming forward of their own volition to follow him. They chose themselves, in other words.But to argue that "only men were at the Last Supper because only his disciples were there; therefore, only men were Jesus's disciples" is a fairly transparent act of circular reasoning. That's amusing, but of course, when it settles out that it's men who get the benefits of "serving by leading", and women who bear the burden of "leading by serving", that's either a particularly tiresome and unlikely coincidence, or institutional sexism. Why do you think my money is on?

Well, folks, take it or leave it, the RCC has taught infallibly on this matter and does not consider itself in any way possessive of the right to change the requirements for ordination.Has the church allowed a high place for women? Yes. Again, there are at least 3 female Doctors of the Church, countless mystics, visionaries, martyrs, queens, foundresses, missionaries, and even a military leader.

Papal infallibility extends to claims of doctrine, not claims of fact. (A lot of people don't understand how papal infallibility works. It's not that the Pope isn't allowed to be wrong; it's that, as Christ's Vicar, he's entitled to write checks that Jesus Christ will cash, if you will. If the Pope determines that you can buy an indulgence, Heaven guarantees that it will be honored. If the Pope decides that contraception isn't a sin, it doesn't matter that previous Popes decided differently - Heaven honors the current Pope's determination.) Not even Jesus Christ can change the past.

At any rate, ana, your couple of justifications for how male-only leadership is somehow "normal" or "natural" have been pretty soundly debunked.

That is a messy way of saying it, but I know what you mean. The Pope can tell you he saw your mom, and be dead wrong. I see. It's really not that the Pope is allowed to be anything. The Pope can be wrong about science and movies, but again, not about doctrine and such.Popes do not and will not toss out the ruling of past popes. The object is at all times to maintain tradition, and to publically define what has been held on faith.As a side note, I did not say anything about papal infallibility.

Well, maybe they say that, but anyone can look at the Church's history and see how that's not true. I mean, Benedict XVI has already reversed many papal edicts of John Paul II. Wha...? No, right here: There's only one infallible figure in the Catholic Church, Ana. I shouldn't have to tell you who it is.As a side note, I have to wonder why you're being so transparently dishonest. Is it your impression that the people you're talking with right now are idiots?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

I never said anything remotely close to that. It wil always be easy to debunk things when you contort them. What I did say was that the male-only priesthood is Biblical and based on the actions of Jesus. It is taught infallibly, and no amount of speculation about who woulda coulda shoulda been anywhere, will change that.

Bring 'em on for examination. See below; I do not have a dishonest bone in my body. I would like to know what makes you think I am being dishonest? If you can't prove that I am dishonest, I will have to complain. Oh, and about the infallibility; I still never said anything about the Pope. I said, 'taught infallibly'. This phrase refers to the episcopal Magesterium of the Church, not the Pope. The Pope defines infallibly.

Protestations of honesty are typical of those who act dishonestly. The honest have no need to proclaim it.When you say something, and then say you didn't say that, that's behaving dishonestly. Maybe you're an honest person, or maybe not; regardless, that's how you're behaving. An old Catholic boy knows who's infallible in the Church and who isn't, I assure you. Like I said there's only one infallible figure in the Church. So, in fact, it was papal infallibility you were talking about. Hence, dishonesty.

The honest have every need to be honest if they are accused of lying. I am hoping that you will be willing to learn something instead of calling people liars. Again, I never mentioned Papal infallibility.Here's a clue; how do you think the Pope was ruled infallible?

Lol! If you're going to insist that you didn't say what you clearly said, I don't know what kind of discussion is going to be possible with you.I hope you enjoy your time here at EvC.

I am going to insist, yes, that I did not mention Papal infallibility. Here is another clue for you; no Pope has spoken ex cathedra since 1950. Infallibility of the Church - WikipediaThe church has taught infallibly, not the Pope. You are of course welcome to question, but Catholics are not, as per Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. So, in fact, I was not speaking about Papal infallibility, and I was very honest in leaving an open end for questions about whether or not the popes would ever rule definitively. Thank you. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What I did say was that the male-only priesthood is Biblical and based on the actions of Jesus. It is taught infallibly, and no amount of speculation about who woulda coulda shoulda been anywhere, will change that.

---

You also said that you weren't bothered by woman hating attitudes, since men are clearly more suited to lead than women because they score higher on IQ tests.I mean, didn't you mean to say that since you think men are naturally smarter they make better leaders?